Indian Supreme Court’s Sabarimala Verdict – A Lesson Indians Never Learn

By Abeed Khader

On 28th September 2018, the honorable Supreme Court of India passed a verdict that allowed women of all ages to enter the Ayyappa Temple in Sabarimala, Kerala. This was a move applauded by all the liberals and feminists across the nation because it struck down an age old law which supported a misogynist patriarchal belief that barred women aged between 10 and 50 from entering on the temple grounds. People have various beliefs and reasons to justify why such a tradition was practiced throughout the years. It varies from saying menstruating women are impure, to a story of love between Ayyappa and Malikappurathamma.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bojk3TnjqQ3/?taken-by=dankmemesmalayalam

The way I look at the issue; the ‘exact’ reason for the practice and whether its purpose is ‘oppressing’ women – is not the point of discussion. Only one among the 5 constitutional bench dissented, and it was the only woman in the bench; Indu Malhotra. She made an incredible statement describing her stance – of which the people didn’t realize the value.

“Constitutional morality in a secular polity would imply harmonisation of fundamental rights, which include the right of every individual, religious denomination, or sect, to practise their faith and belief in accordance with the tenets of their religion, irrespective of whether the practice is rational or logical.”

This statement implied only one of the most important lessons mankind have learned throughout their grim history of war and violence. Separation of Church (Religion) and State. Nobody should ever be defending why this is absolutely necessary, but Indians and the Indian government never seem to understand this while in their plight to become the world’s largest ‘secular’ democratic country.

Secular doesn’t mean equally prioritizing religions, it means not having any connection with religious or spiritual matters. The government can’t dictate the manner a group of believers should practice their religion. So the question now becomes – what if a minority group have a belief that is in contradiction with the majority? What if the minority is at a lose because of that particular prevalent belief? Unless the majority is physically abusing the minority by restricting their personal choices and freedoms; The answer is, it should be addressed through discussions and debates within the religious community.

Barring the legality, the claim that Sabarimala temple is public property is actually unreasonable. It is the property of the Hindu community. What defines a community? A community is not purely homogeneous – its basic principles and traits are defined by the generally accepted norms that are a result of frequent never ending reviews, discussion, and debates within the community. An authority (outside the community) stepping in can’t dictate what all practices/norms/beliefs are and aren’t in line with the community’s beliefs or principles.

I personally think and feel women shouldn’t be discriminated in any manner, but i am not part of the community and don’t subscribe to any of its beliefs. If it is a devotee who feels such practices are discriminatory, the right step forward starts by acknowledging the fact that those are the generally acknowledged principles and beliefs of their community. Now, it is their choice whether to accept and to comply with the expectations of the community and religion, or to dissent and try to reform the community through voluntary means, or to ask philosophical questions to oneself on the beliefs of their community and question the validity of the religion from which it emerged etc. Your beliefs are either rational or irrational, if it is rational and in accordance to your religious principles, convincing the majority is not an impossible task. The easy way out would seem to file a petition to the court as seen in this case; but forcing an entire majority of believers to your ‘true form of religious practice’ is an absolute abhorrent act. It is absolutely naive to think this decision can never be reversed and only the ‘righteous’ will decide what practices will be entertained or not.

The triggered believers should understand that this will imply that the government has no business banning beef because cow is considered like a mother by Hindu community, it has no business banning Muslim community from practicing triple talaq, it has no business banning Christian community from offering money to people to join their religion etc. Then what does it guarantee? It guarantees choice and nurtures responsibility over the kind of beliefs one accept and submit to.

Either the government is allowed to force its version of ‘justice’ in religious matters (whether the community likes it or not) or it should never have the right to do any such thing. Indians, it is time to decide on this and stick to it.